karthik_v

Shvu: the Sringeri Math has had no trouble from Invaders and has had an unbroken line of Shankaras. That is what they claim. The simple truth is that SM also had a broken lineage. Even as recent as Tipu Sultan' time, it was only with his help that the mutt was given a life. In fact, tipu Sultan was a tyrant who massacred the Hindus. But, when he faced the music from the British, to neutralize opposition, he revived Sringeri mutt. Besides Islam folks did not arrive in India at least for 4 centuries after the time of Shankara during when his Bhaashya had already become famous and was also criticized by Raamaanuja and others, which means there were multiple copies in vogue, by then. This, assuming that we can ascertain Sankara's date with any certainty Second, I don't think that Ramanuja makes any mention about Sankara's mention of GS. I even wonder if Ramanuja ever mentions about GS. So, that is not a clincher. Manu Smriti may have been authored/ interpolated during the time of the Buddha, when the Brahmins reigned supreme. Also, the Gautamiiya Dharma Suutra. Quite possible, but not certain. Pre-Buddhist Tamil works have no memory of MS or GS. If they were present and enforced by the Brahmins then, how come they don't even find a mention? However the important point is, according to the big 3, Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and ipso facto are not elgible for Vedic study. First, we have to ascertain they said so. Second we have to analyze if what they said was authorized by the vedas. If it has no vedic sanction, then it is better discounted or treates as interpolation. There are too many verses in the vedas that say that everyone should listen to the vedas and NONE which proscribes them. If an acarya says something contrary, the onus is upon him to defend it. Also, where are contradictions in the Bhaashya according to Shivaananda? I will post them this evening, if I get home early. If not on Tuesday, when we return from Yosemite

Plain no. There is no mention in the vedas about any Manusmriti.

Plain no. There is no mention in the vedas about any Manusmriti.

Shvu: Prima facie, this texts appears suspicious to me. When stalwart Acharayas have clearly stated that Shuudras are not eligible for Upanayana and Vedic study, I would be very surprised if they chose to ignore direct Vedic sources and drew support from Smriti. Assuming that the works of the stalwart acharyas have not been interpolated. None of the traditions had continuous disciplic succession. Even Sringeri mutt was revived thanks to Tipu sultan Muslims often killed our acharyas. So, it is quite possible that after long breaks, the new acharya introduced his own spin. I got this reference from my friend, who follows Sri Aurobindo and lives in that ashram. I can check with him the source he uses, but he is very meticulous. I don't think you should take sacred-texts too seriously. They use Griffith's Rk veda, which is full of errors. They grab whatever they can get for free and host. I think the best way is to go to the samhitas as preserved in a tradition.

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says: Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

First of all sorry to have said that it was Atharva veda which states that shudras are eligible to listen to the vedas. I checked and it is actually Yajur veda. Yajur Veda X.X.V.2 says: Yatemam vacam kalyanim, avadani janebhyah, brahma rajanyabhyam, Sudraya ca aryaya ca, svaya caranaya ca Translation: Let everyone listen to these auspicious words, be they brahmins, kshatriyas, Sudras, people of noble birth, our own people or others..."

Sarvanukramanis.

What about computer programmers, pilots and internet hackers? Is there any samhita or upanishad that talks of women being encouraged to become a neuro-surgeon? Thanks in advance for the information Did you hear it from a mullah? If so, then how come sarvanukramanis list 21 of the 400 + compilers in the vedas as rishikas? If those women were qualified enough to be revealed the vedas, then how come they weren't qualified enough to recite the gayatri mantra that came of the vedas? Or could it be that when the vedas were revealed to them, their enlightened husbands stood nearby and rotated their chakras in anti-clockwise direction so that they don't get ill? I seriously wonder if the man as the all pervading boss of the family concept existed in the distant past. Rk veda [funeral hymn] talks of the wife being told to go ahead and chose any man she wants after her husband was cremated. If so, perversions like tonsuring of the widows or wretched treatment of women might not have existed in the vedic era. Atleast there is nothing in the vedas to suggest that they did.

I am afraid that this is incorrect as per modern science. A foetus in the womb keeps shifting position all the time. So, it is impossible to say which of the twins was conceived first.

Tirisilex: Thanks for that introduction about yourself. It is very heartening to have a practising Buddhist on this forum. I hope we can exchange more knowledge. The beauty of this forum [run by J N Das] is that people from different schools of philosophies can come together and exchange knowledge, without getting sectarian. Welcome aboard. I too recall reading different versions of Buddha's experience with Mara's daughters. The movie Little Buddha too portrays that incident. In that movie as well, Buddha doesn't even look at them or gets bothered. Their attempts to distract him fail. Now, I don't remember as to how many daughters were portrayed in that movie. Perhaps 3, but I would take the movie versions not so seriously. Perhaps your guru Lama can provide information on this - and you can share with us. One more thing. The same names are used by different people in the Hindu puranas. So, may be the Rati in that Buddha incident isn't the same as Madana's wife. Of course, I am speculating - J N Das can clarify. Mahabharat is considered an itihasa. It is considered by the Hindus as history. True, it also comes with many moral lessons - especially the entire Bhagavad Gita which is part of Mahabharat, is Krishna's lesson to humanity. Mahabharat is very long. It has 1,00,000 verses and it has spiritual messages, politics, war, love everything packed into it in such a manner that even a lay audience can get the message easily. Interestingly Mahabharat and Ramayana were transmitted through performing arts for millennia. Sometime back, a member had posted a web link to Srila Prabhupad's Krishna book. I don't recall in which thread. May be someone can help you with that url. That way, you can see what SP had written about Rati. Already Sarasvati has mentioned the exact chapter so finding it may be easy. Or, as she suggested all Hare Krishna temples sell them. I think they cost $ 5.

Most Hindu scriptures are in a language called Sanskrit. Often times, it is difficult to translate phrases from Sanskrit to English. So, there has been a general tendency to lump words together and translate them all as God. But, what is the Sanskrit word for God? It is Bhagavan, meaning the One who has 6 opulences. There are several species, all jivas, as per the Hindu scriptures. They have a hierarchial relationship. We humans are somewhere in between. Devas, also known as demi-Gods, are a species higher than the humans. Rati and Madana are devas. They are not Gods. They are not eternal. As per Hindu scriptures, there is only one God. He is perceived by the seers in many a form. Rk veda says, ekam sad viprah bahuddha vadati - "the truth is One, but the sages realize it many ways". Some realize it as Krishna, some as Shiva and some as Durga. The acarya, who has realized Supreme in a particular form, renders that form in a depiction. That is why you find many pictures of the God. You don't find that many pictures of the devas like Indra, Rati etc., as the Hindus don't consider them as Supreme. They are just a species, though higher than us. But, I am skeptical about another member's statement that they cannot be depicted in any form. Why not? If Krishna can be, then why not Rati? I think the reason she is not depicted so widely is because she is not that important for the Hindus - she has her role to play in the puranas and it ends there. Yet, I do have a feeling that there must be depictions in old temple engravings. My hunch is based on a more than 2000 year old Tamil poetry [Tamil is another old classical language of India like Sanskrit] called Paripaadal. In that poem, the husband is narrating the engravings in a temple to his wife. And one of the engravings is Rati and Madana. I need to do more research to identify that temple, though I feel it must be in Tirupparan kundram, near Madurai, Tamilnadu, India. I am also very positive that you will find depictions of Rati in many temple engravings. Kama or sex is the single largest subject of engravings in the temples in India. So, you must find Rati for certain.

Abhi, that is why I always prefer a simple religion like Islam - no questions, no answers, no disagreements, no confusion. Only injunctions anf fatwas for not complying with them. Ain't it great?

A very valid point. What ultimately matters is the name of the Lord and ISKCON has given that. Of course, I wouldn't credit to the entire GV for that - only ISKCON took this to the entire world. Others took roots only after ISKCON established and often by banking on ISKCON devotees. The only botheration is some kind of fanaticism that goes with GV. Talking of upanishads, just because Adi Sankara didn't comment on a particular upanishad doesn't mean it is bogus - provided some other acarya from any established school has commented on it. Has anyone commented on GTU before? So far as I know, most acaryas stuck to the 13 principal upanishads.

A very valid point. What ultimately matters is the name of the Lord and ISKCON has given that. Of course, I wouldn't credit to the entire GV for that - only ISKCON took this to the entire world. Others took roots only after ISKCON established and often by banking on ISKCON devotees. The only botheration is some kind of fanaticism that goes with GV. Talking of upanishads, just because Adi Sankara didn't comment on a particular upanishad doesn't mean it is bogus - provided some other acarya from any established school has commented on it. Has anyone commented on GTU before? So far as I know, most acaryas stuck to the 13 principal upanishads.

1. There are fishes in oases. 2. Taste is not dependent on the object. It depends on the taster. For example, a bland food tastes great if you had been starving for 48 hours. You may not touch the same stuff had your wife been cooking for you. The site of mango on TV brings to your nostrils a perception of its aroma and to your buds a perception of its taste. 3. Isn't every entity conscious? Isn't moon conscious? 4/5. Fish is real - mirage is unreal. Atma is real - the perception of the material world by ahankara is unreal. Hence, the relationship is the same. An anology can only be used to demonstrate the truth. It doesn't have to be or doesn't become the truth itself. If we are stuck in semantics, we lose every oppurtunity to see the truth.

My sugestion is don't be rebellious with your friends and family. That is a big mistake a lot of neophyte devotees commit. Srila Prabhupad never told anyone to rebel against their families. No, I am not suggesting that you take meat, garlic etc., to appease them. Far from that. Stick to your stance, explain very patiently as to why you are avoiding those and above all make sure that you are expressing your concern for them. After all, your parents and siblings love you and they are your well wishers. If they don't see your point right away, it is due to their ignorance - not malevalence. If you are understanding and concerned towards them, they will sure reciprocate as time goes by. On the other hand, if you turn rebellious, they will harbour all kinds of hate towards Krishna consciousness. Did you know something? Srila Prabhupad once ordered the devotees to eat onion so as not to offend the host? No, he was not advocating eating onion, but he was subtly driving home the need to not hurt others unduly. I presume you are from India. Indian mothers are downright sentimental. There is nothing they will not do for their children if you strike the right chord. Instead of letting this issue turn into a debate, just talk to her in private and tell her how you want your prasadam to be made. In all probability, she will cook 2 different recipes for the family, if the others don't want to change right away. And above all, she will fight your battle and neutralize any opposition.

There is a good news for those living in the USA, with nobody to cook for them, too busy to cook themselves and wanting to follow a Krishna Conscious diet. Next time you go to the Indian grocery store, look for MTR Instant daal, mutter paneer, channa masala etc.. They also come with Jain versions and they don't contain onion and garlic. They cost $2.50 per packet and it will be sufficient for 1 person per mealtime. All you need to do is cut it open, either microwave or soak the packet in hot water for 5 minutes and the dish is ready. You can buy chapatti or cook rice to go with that. This doesn't require refrigeration till you open it. We used them last week when we went to Lake Tahoe. It is nice. It is also a lot cheaper than eating at a restaurant and what is more, it is from a very reputed south India based company and you get the flavours without onion and garlic as well. Of course, nothing like cooking, offering and eating fresh. But, this is better than starving or eating outside. I am sure, this is available in India, Singapore, Dubai etc.. as well. Even American devotees may want to try this, in case they don't know how to make Indian recipes.

Now it looks very nice. Kudos for the responsiveness. Jai Shri Ram! Har Har Mahadev!

Now it looks very nice. Kudos for the responsiveness. Jai Shri Ram! Har Har Mahadev!

Also, it is evident that she is wearing a saree. Look right above where is holding that fabric. You can see the pallu right across the bosom. ghagra is never worn that way.

Also, it is evident that she is wearing a saree. Look right above where is holding that fabric. You can see the pallu right across the bosom. ghagra is never worn that way.

If you look at the photo, there is zari, in yellow or gold, at the bottom. The wave pattern of the zari exactly looks like it should, if it were a saree or skirt. Had it been a dupatta, the zari will be on either sides or neither. It will never be on only one side. Second, try holding a dupatta in your hand and let it drape naturally. You can never see the zari on 3 sides as seen here. So, it is not dupatta. Yes, Raga, has a valid point. This fabric seems too long to be a skirt. That is why I said it is bad artistic work, because it doesn't express the intent. It sends out very wrong signals.

If you look at the photo, there is zari, in yellow or gold, at the bottom. The wave pattern of the zari exactly looks like it should, if it were a saree or skirt. Had it been a dupatta, the zari will be on either sides or neither. It will never be on only one side. Second, try holding a dupatta in your hand and let it drape naturally. You can never see the zari on 3 sides as seen here. So, it is not dupatta. Yes, Raga, has a valid point. This fabric seems too long to be a skirt. That is why I said it is bad artistic work, because it doesn't express the intent. It sends out very wrong signals.

The same doctors also laughed at acupunture till a couple of decades ago. They ridiculed yoga till a decade ago. Never mind. I think J N Das summed up nicely. If ayurveda prescribes garlic under certain conditions, then it is as a medicine. Garlic is an impediment in the spritual path and hence is not recommended as general food. But, if ayurveda prescribes it for certain conditions, I think high blood pressure too, then it has to be treated as medicine.